Search Results

Search found 1638 results on 66 pages for 'multithreading'.

Page 47/66 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

  • No matter what, I can't get this stupid progress bar to update from a thread!

    - by Synthetix
    I have a Windows app written in C (using gcc/MinGW) that works pretty well except for a few UI problems. One, I simply cannot get the progress bar to update from a thread. In fact, I probably can't get ANY UI stuff to update. Basically, I have a spawned thread that does some processing, and from that thread I attempt to update the progress bar in the main thread. I tried this by using PostMessage() to the main hwnd, but no luck even though I can do other things like open message boxes. However, it's unclear whether the message box is getting called within the thread or on the main thread. Here's some code: //in header/globally accessible HWND wnd; //main application window HWND progress_bar; //progress bar typedef struct { //to pass to thread DWORD mainThreadId; HWND mainHwnd; char *filename; } THREADSTUFF; //callback function LRESULT CALLBACK WndProc(HWND hwnd, UINT msg, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam){ switch(msg){ case WM_CREATE:{ //create progress bar progress_bar = CreateWindowEx( 0, PROGRESS_CLASS, (LPCTSTR)NULL, WS_CHILD | WS_VISIBLE, 79,164,455,15, hwnd, (HMENU)20, NULL, NULL); break; } case WM_COMMAND:{ if(LOWORD(wParam)==2){ //do some processing in a thread //struct of stuff I need to pass to thread THREADSTUFF *threadStuff; threadStuff = (THREADSTUFF*)malloc(sizeof(*threadStuff)); threadStuff->mainThreadId = GetCurrentThreadId(); threadStuff->mainHwnd = hwnd; threadStuff->filename = (void*)&filename; hThread1 = CreateThread(NULL,0,convertFile (LPVOID)threadStuff,0,NULL); }else if(LOWORD(wParam)==5){ //update progress bar MessageBox(hwnd,"I got a message!", "Message", MB_OK | MB_ICONINFORMATION); PostMessage(progress_bar,PBM_STEPIT,0,CLR_DEFAULT); } break; } } } This all seems to work okay. The problem is in the thread: DWORD WINAPI convertFile(LPVOID params){ //get passed params, this works perfectly fine THREADSTUFF *tData = (THREADSTUFF*)params; MessageBox(tData->mainHwnd,tData->filename,"File name",MB_OK | MB_ICONINFORMATION); //yep PostThreadMessage(tData->mainThreadId,WM_COMMAND,5,0); //only shows message PostMessage(tData->mainHwnd,WM_COMMAND,5,0); //only shows message } When I say, "only shows message," that means the MessageBox() function in the callback works, but not the PostMessage() to update the position of the progress bar. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • Where to begin with multi-threaded programming with c++?

    - by zoke
    I'm trying to implement my own IRC client as a personal proejct and I realized I needed a way to read and write from the socket at the same time. I realized I could have a reading thread which reads from the socket in the background and puts data in a queue and I could have another thread which writes data from a queue to the socket. However I have no idea on how to start with multithreaded programing or how to do it with c++. Where do I go from here?

    Read the article

  • boost thread pool

    - by Dtag
    I need a threadpool for my application, and I'd like to rely on standard (C++11 or boost) stuff as much as possible. I realize there is an unofficial(!) boost thread pool class, which basically solves what I need, however I'd rather avoid it because it is not in the boost library itself -- why is it still not in the core library after so many years? In some posts on this page and elsewhere, people suggested using boost::asio to achieve a threadpool like behavior. At first sight, that looked like what I wanted to do, however I found out that all implementations I have seen have no means to join on the currently active tasks, which makes it useless for my application. To perform a join, they send stop signal to all the threads and subsequently join them. However, that completely nullifies the advantage of threadpools in my use case, because that makes new tasks require the creation of a new thread. What I want to do is: ThreadPool pool(4); for (...) { for (int i=0;i<something;i++) pool.pushTask(...); pool.join(); // do something with the results } Can anyone suggest a solution (except for using the existing unofficial thread pool on sourceforge)? Is there anything in C++11 or core boost that can help me here? Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread for multiple threads

    - by Kaustubh Ranjan Singh
    static class solver implements Runnable { static calculator(problem){ //Some code if(condition) {solver s = new solver(newproblem); new Thread(s).start();} } Public solver(int newproblem) { this.problem = newproblem ; } public void run() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub calculator(promblem); } } i am having a big array maze of 100x100 and i am trying to solve it and i am getting an error java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread(after running a code for some times). How can solve this , How can i use ExecutorService i think that will solve the problem or i want something like thisIf Number of generated threads4K then stop the first 100 threads

    Read the article

  • Apply [ThreadStatic] attribute to a method in external assembly

    - by Sen Jacob
    Can I use an external assembly's static method like [ThreadStatic] method? Here is my situation. The assembly class (which I do not have access to its source) has this structure public class RegistrationManager() { private RegistrationManager() {} public static void RegisterConfiguration(int ID) {} public static object DoWork() {} public static void UnregisterConfiguration(int ID) {} } Once registered, I cannot call the DoWork() with a different ID without unregistering the previously registered one. Actually I want to call the DoWork() method with different IDs simultaneously with multi-threading. If the RegisterConfiguration(int ID) method was [ThreadStatic], I could have call it in different threads without problems with calls, right? So, can I apply the [ThreadStatic] attribute to this method or is there any other way I can call the two static methods same time without waiting for other thread to unregister it? If I check it like the following, it should work. for(int i=0; i < 10; i++) { new Thread(new ThreadStart(() => Checker(i))).Start(); } public string Checker(int i) { public static void RegisterConfiguration(i); // Now i cannot register second time public static object DoWork(i); Thread.Sleep(5000); // DoWork() may take a little while to complete before unregistered public static void UnregisterConfiguration(i); }

    Read the article

  • REST WCF service locks thread when called using AJAX in an ASP.Net site

    - by Jupaol
    I have a WCF REST service consumed in an ASP.Net site, from a page, using AJAX. I want to be able to call methods from my service async, which means I will have callback handlers in my javascript code and when the methods finish, the output will be updated. The methods should run in different threads, because each method will take different time to complete their task I have the code semi-working, but something strange is happening because the first time I execute the code after compiling, it works, running each call in a different threads but subsequent calls blocs the service, in such a way that each method call has to wait until the last call ends in order to execute the next one. And they are running on the same thread. I have had the same problem before when I was using Page Methods, and I solved it by disabling the session in the page but I have not figured it out how to do the same when consuming WCF REST services Note: Methods complete time (running them async should take only 7 sec and the result should be: Execute1 - Execute3 - Execute2) Execute1 -- 2 sec Execute2 -- 7 sec Execute3 -- 4 sec Output After compiling Output subsequent calls (this is the problem) I will post the code...I'll try to simplify it as much as I can Service Contract [ServiceContract( SessionMode = SessionMode.NotAllowed )] public interface IMyService { // I have other 3 methods like these: Execute2 and Execute3 [OperationContract] [WebInvoke( RequestFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json, ResponseFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json, UriTemplate = "/Execute1", Method = "POST")] string Execute1(string param); } [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)] [ServiceBehavior( InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.PerCall )] public class MyService : IMyService { // I have other 3 methods like these: Execute2 (7 sec) and Execute3(4 sec) public string Execute1(string param) { var t = Observable.Start(() => Thread.Sleep(2000), Scheduler.NewThread); t.First(); return string.Format("Execute1 on: {0} count: {1} at: {2} thread: {3}", param, "0", DateTime.Now.ToString(), Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString()); } } ASPX page <%@ Page EnableSessionState="False" Title="Home Page" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Site.master" AutoEventWireup="true" CodeBehind="Default.aspx.cs" Inherits="RestService._Default" %> <asp:Content ID="HeaderContent" runat="server" ContentPlaceHolderID="HeadContent"> <script type="text/javascript"> function callMethodAsync(url, data) { $("#message").append("<br/>" + new Date()); $.ajax({ cache: false, type: "POST", async: true, url: url, data: '"de"', contentType: "application/json", dataType: "json", success: function (msg) { $("#message").append("<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;" + msg); }, error: function (xhr) { alert(xhr.responseText); } }); } $(function () { $("#callMany").click(function () { $("#message").html(""); callMethodAsync("/Execute1", "hello"); callMethodAsync("/Execute2", "crazy"); callMethodAsync("/Execute3", "world"); }); }); </script> </asp:Content> <asp:Content ID="BodyContent" runat="server" ContentPlaceHolderID="MainContent"> <input type="button" id="callMany" value="Post Many" /> <div id="message"> </div> </asp:Content> Web.config (relevant) <system.webServer> <modules runAllManagedModulesForAllRequests="true" /> </system.webServer> <system.serviceModel> <serviceHostingEnvironment aspNetCompatibilityEnabled="true" multipleSiteBindingsEnabled="true" /> <standardEndpoints> <webHttpEndpoint> <standardEndpoint name="" helpEnabled="true" automaticFormatSelectionEnabled="true" /> </webHttpEndpoint> </standardEndpoints> </system.serviceModel> Global.asax void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e) { RouteTable.Routes.Ignore("{resource}.axd/{*pathInfo}"); RouteTable.Routes.Add(new ServiceRoute("", new WebServiceHostFactory(), typeof(MyService))); }

    Read the article

  • Servlet that starts a thread only once for every visitor

    - by user858749
    Hey I want to implement a Java Servlet that starts a thread only once for every single user. Even on refresh it should not start again. My last approach brought me some trouble so no code^^. Any Suggestions for the layout of the servlet? public class LoaderServlet extends HttpServlet { // The thread to load the needed information private LoaderThread loader; // The last.fm account private String lfmaccount; public LoaderServlet() { super(); lfmaccount = ""; } @Override protected void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { if (loader != null) { response.setContentType("text/plain"); response.setHeader("Cache-Control", "no-cache"); PrintWriter out = response.getWriter(); out.write(loader.getStatus()); out.flush(); out.close(); } else { loader = new LoaderThread(lfmaccount); loader.start(); request.getRequestDispatcher("WEB-INF/pages/loader.jsp").forward( request, response); } } @Override protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { if (lfmaccount.isEmpty()) { lfmaccount = request.getSession().getAttribute("lfmUser") .toString(); } request.getRequestDispatcher("WEB-INF/pages/loader.jsp").forward( request, response); } } The jsp uses ajax to regularly post to the servlet and get the status. The thread just runs like 3 minutes, crawling some last.fm data.

    Read the article

  • When Should I Use Threads?

    - by cam
    As far as I'm concerned, the ideal amount of threads is 3: one for the UI, one for CPU resources, and one for IO resources. But I'm probably wrong. I'm just getting introduced to them, but I've always used one for the UI and one for everything else. When should I use threads and how? How do I know if I should be using them?

    Read the article

  • Repeated host lookups failing in urllib2

    - by reve_etrange
    I have code which issues many HTTP GET requests using Python's urllib2, in several threads, writing the responses into files (one per thread). During execution, it looks like many of the host lookups fail (causing a name or service unknown error, see appended error log for an example). Is this due to a flaky DNS service? Is it bad practice to rely on DNS caching, if the host name isn't changing? I.e. should a single lookup's result be passed into the urlopen? Exception in thread Thread-16: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.6/threading.py", line 532, in __bootstrap_inner self.run() File "/home/da/local/bin/ThreadedDownloader.py", line 61, in run page = urllib2.urlopen(url) # get the page File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 126, in urlopen return _opener.open(url, data, timeout) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 391, in open response = self._open(req, data) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 409, in _open '_open', req) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 369, in _call_chain result = func(*args) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1170, in http_open return self.do_open(httplib.HTTPConnection, req) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1145, in do_open raise URLError(err) URLError: <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>

    Read the article

  • Fast way to pass a simple java object from one thread to another

    - by Adal
    I have a callback which receives an object. I make a copy of this object, and I must pass it on to another thread for further processing. It's very important for the callback to return as fast as possible. Ideally, the callback will write the copy to some sort of lock-free container. I only have the callback called from a single thread and one processing thread. I only need to pass a bunch of doubles to the other thread, and I know the maximum number of doubles (around 40). Any ideas? I'm not very familiar with Java, so I don't know the usual ways to pass stuff between threads.

    Read the article

  • What happens to an instance of ServerSocket blocked inside accept(), when I drop all references to i

    - by Hanno Fietz
    In a multithreaded Java application, I just tracked down a strange-looking bug, realizing that what seemed to be happening was this: one of my objects was storing a reference to an instance of ServerSocket on startup, one thread would, in its main loop in run(), call accept() on the socket while the socket was still waiting for a connection, another thread would try to restart the component under some conditions, the restart process missed the cleanup sequence before it reached the initialization sequence as a result, the reference to the socket was overwritten with a new instance, which then wasn't able to bind() anymore the socket which was blocking inside the accept() wasn't accessible anymore, leaving a complete shutdown and restart of the application as the only way to get rid of it. Which leaves me wondering: with no references left to the ServerSocket instance, what would free the socket for a new connection? At what point would the ServerSocket become garbage collected? In general, what are good practices I can follow to avoid this type of bug?

    Read the article

  • How to call a function though Control.BeginInvoke in a signal-slot-like fashion?

    - by Dimitri C.
    I'd like a delegate that calls a function in a different thread when it is invoked. Currently, I'm using the following implementation: delegate void someFunctionDelegate(); //... someFunctionDelegate callBackFunction = someForm.SomeFunction; someForm.Invoke(someFunctionDelegate); However, I'd like a more compact form, combining both the someForm instance and the SomeForm.SomeFunction member function. I'm thinking of something like this: var callBackFunction = new AsynchronousCrossThreadDelegate(someForm, SomeForm.SomeFunction); callBackFunction(); // Should call someForm.BeginInvoke(SomeForm.SomeFunction); Is there a way to do so in C#/.NET? Update I'm looking for a solution that will work for functions with 0 or more parameters.

    Read the article

  • multiple move operations and data processes in work thread

    - by younevertell
    main thread-- start workthread--StartStage(get list of positions for data process) -- move to one position -- data sampling*strong text*-- data collection--data analysis------data sampling*strong text* basically, work thread does the data sampling*strong text*-- data collection--data analysis------data sampling*strong text* loop for one positioin until press stop or target is obtained. my questions: After work thread finishs the loop for one positioin, it would end itself. now how to make the work thread moves to the next position to do the data process loop after work thread finish one position work, would not end itself until data process for all the positions are done? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Threading Problems in ActionScript 2.0?

    - by yar
    Is it possible to have concurrency problems (thread competition) in an onEnterFrame method in ActionScript 2.0? I have written this cheesy code as a guard: if (!busy) { // I suspect some threading problems: is that even possible in flash busy = true; movePanels(); busy = false; } but this is no assurance against thread competition. If so, how can I do a basic semaphore/lock? Note: I suspect threading problems in my app, but if they're impossible, I'll check my code differently.

    Read the article

  • C++ Multithreaded server help

    - by kisplit
    Hello all, I'm working on a multithreaded server in c++ using boost-asio. Currently a design problem I'm running into deals with erasing a connection. I have a single server instance which holds a vector of connection objects. These connections receive commands which I parse. One command in particular deals with sending data to ALL connections in my vector. Now when a connection disconnects I'm currently erasing this connection from the vector and calling the destructor. It seems like I'm going to run into problems when someone 'SendAll' at the same time someone 'Disconnect'. Could anyone recommend a better design or just point me in the right direction? Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Multiple things at once (Threads?)

    - by Jonathan
    All, What is a really simple way of having a program do more than one thing at once, even if the computer does not necessarily have multiple 'cores'. Can I do this by creating more than one Thread? My goal is to be able to have two computers networked (through Sockets) to respond to each-other's requests, while my program will at the same time be able to be managing a UI. I want the server to potentially handle more than one client at the same time as well. My understanding is that the communication is done with BufferedReader.readLine() and PrintWriter.println(). My problem is that I want the server to be waiting on multiple readLine() requests, and also be doing other things. How do I handle this? Many thanks, Jonathan

    Read the article

  • How do I stop Ant from hanging after executing a java program that attempted to interrupt a thread (and failed) and continued?

    - by Zugwalt
    I have Ant build and execute a java program. This program tries to do something that sometimes hangs, so we execute it in a thread. actionThread.start(); try { actionThread.join(10000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { System.out.println("InterruptedException: "+e.getMessage()); } if (actionThread.isAlive()) { actionThread.interrupt(); System.out.println("Thread timed out and never died"); } The ant call looks like this: <java fork="true" failonerror="yes" classname="myPackage.myPathName" classpath="build"> <arg line=""/> <classpath> <pathelement location="bin" /> <fileset dir="lib"> <include name="**/*.jar"/> </fileset> </classpath> </java> And when this runs I see the "Thread timed out and never died" statement, and I also see the main program finish execution, but then Ant just hangs. Presumably it is waiting for the child threads to finish, but they never will. How can I have Ant be done once it is done executing main() and just kill or ignore dead threads?

    Read the article

  • What would happen to GC if I run process with priority = RealTime?

    - by Bobb
    I have a C# app which runs with priority RealTime. It was all fine until I made few hectic changes in past 2 days. Now it runs out of memory in few hours. I am trying to find whether it is a memory leak I created of this is because I consume lot more objects than before and GC simply cant collect them because it runs with same priority. My question is - what could happen to GC when it tries to collect objects in application with RealTime priority (there is also at least one thread running with Highest thread priority)? (P.S. by realtime priority I mean Process.GetCurrentProcess().PriorityClass = ProcessPriorityClass.RealTime) Sorry forgot to tell. GC is in Server mode

    Read the article

  • dao as a member of a servlet - normal?

    - by EugeneP
    I guess, DAO is thread safe, does not use any class members. So can it be used without any problem as a private field of a Servlet ? We need only one copy, and multiple threads can access it simultaneously, so why bother creating a local variable, right?

    Read the article

  • DispatcherOperations.Wait()

    - by Mark
    What happens if you call dispatcherOperation.Wait() on an operation that has already completed? Also, the docs say that it returns a DispatcherOperationStatus, but wouldn't that always be Completed since it (supposedly) doesn't return until it's done? I was trying to use it like this: private void Update() { while (ops.Count > 0) ops.Dequeue().Wait(); } public void Add(T item) { lock (sync) { if (dispatcher.CheckAccess()) { list.Add(item); OnCollectionChanged(new NotifyCollectionChangedEventArgs(NotifyCollectionChangedAction.Add, item)); } else { ops.Enqueue(dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action<T>(Add), item)); } } } I'm using this in WPF, so all the Add operations have to occur on the UI thread, but I figured I could basically just queue them up without having to wait for it to switch threads, and then just call Update() before any read operations to ensure that the list is up to date, but my program started hanging.

    Read the article

  • How do I know if a boost thread is done ?

    - by jules
    I am using boost::thread to process messages in a queue. When a first message comes I start a message processing thread. When a second message comes I check if the message processing thread is done. if it is done I start a new one if it is not done I don nothing. How do I know if the thread is done ? I tried with joinable() but it is not working, as when the thread is done, it is still joinable. I also tried to interrupt the process at once, and add an interruption point at the end of my thread, but it did not work. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Cocoa: NSOpenPanel Threads

    - by Craig
    I am monitoring my application using Activity Monitor and whenever NSOpenPanel is called the application appears as having 9 threads and stays like that until the application is closed. Is there a way to release those threads?, Or am I simply misunderstanding what the threads number means?, surely it isn't a good thing to have them open for no reason. Any help would be appreciated

    Read the article

  • logging one thread in Java using log4j

    - by Javier
    I have an web application written in Java, and I have a thread-pool. The application is huge, and I cannot make major changes, for example, I cannot change log4j. I am executing a batch process in the thread pool, and I want to log everything that goes is executed to execute that process. There will always be just one thread active in the thread pool. Any ideas of how can I do that?

    Read the article

  • How to stop Interruptible Threads in Java

    - by Dr.Lesh
    I have a Java application that I CAN'T EDIT that starts a Thread wich has this run method: public void run(){ while(true){ System.out.println("Something"); } } And at a certain moment I wanna stop it, but if I use thread.interrupt(); it won't work. If I use thread.stop(); it works, but this method is deprecated and its use is discouraged because soon it will be removed from JVM. Does anyone knows how to do it? Thank you.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >